Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are perhaps better.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

No "better" government

I always read Libertarian Money, enjoy their posts, and usually agree with them. I was reading the linked one, though, and just had to disagree.

Is a local government really less intrusive than a national government?

I don't think so.

Washington DC (or even the state capital) is far, far away. They could pass any "laws" they felt like, but without someone "local" to impose those "laws" on me, what power do they have?

Yes, a "law" saying I must mow my lawn in a particular way is actually more oppressive than a federal anti-gun "law", simply because, well, which one is more likely to be enforced against me?

Do you think the feds have enough hired goons to go around and commit acts of enforcement against everyone with a gun they have criminalized? No. Unless you draw attention to yourself in some way they'll probably never notice. But, the code enforcers who will steal from you based upon your lawn; they live near you. They may drive past your house every day. Chances of them not noticing you in some way is practically non-existent.

Even any federal "laws" you get caught breaking will probably be enforced first by the local goons on behalf of the feds.

Personally, I'd rather get rid of the local molesters and then focus on those thousands of miles away- if it's even worth the bother at that point. Because, without the complicity of the local thugs, how do the feds believe they will enforce anything?

Now, maybe a local government would be easier to fight off and win, but only if it couldn't call upon a federal backup gang to protect it from justice, and perhaps that's a good reason to undermine the false legitimacy of a "national government" first- and support secession or whatever cracks the egg. I'm all for breaking up any government into smaller, bitesize pieces, but I don't pretend one is somehow "better" than another. All are founded upon theft and aggression.

3 comments:

The issue is monopoly, not size or location. No monopoly can exist in a free market. Somebody will always come along to outbid the "fat-cats" unless prevented by monopoly licensing, regulation, or prohibition -- all functions of "government" -- the most malignant monopoly ("MMM") of them all.

All monopolies are evil. The psychopaths who pull you over have a case if they say they have a case -- no matter the law or the charge or the evidence. Theirs is a monopoly upon violence, and they all feed from the same nosebag. They make laws, enforce laws, prosecute laws, hire prosecutors, license "defense" attorneys, pay "judges", build jails, contract jails to private entities, employ and pay "wardens", employ and pay guards, employ and pay "parole officers".

Good work if you can get it.

The writer inserts sort of a strange analogy that makes the anarchists' point:

"...It’s kind of like the difference between a seed and a tree. Sure, the size is dramatically different but, more importantly, it’s fundamental nature is wildly different..."

The point is, all gigantic trees started from a miniscule seed. All egregious "nations" began with "a village" (to use the liberals' favorite propaganda). There is no such thing as a tame, non-growth "government". The very nature of monopoly is growth, usurpation and tyranny. Read this (<==PDF).

Sorry for the second comment, but seems I always think of something or google onto something that augments the point of your essay. In this case it is this video, which is actually posted on a comment to this article.

Larken Rose is good at clearing up all the obfuscation virtually all of us were inculcated with from the time we were babies in kindergarten. Sam

You don't need to apologize for a second comment- especially to post a link to a Larken Rose video!

When I very first started really getting into liberty, one of my early online friends hated Larken and anyone associated with tax resistance- whom she and her group called "tax deniers". It was just one of the things that quickly made me see she wasn't as much a fan of liberty as she made herself out to be. She has since dropped off the radar completely.